Bryce Edwards: Politics round-up: Who's killing local democracy?

A million eligible voters chose not to vote in the last general election, resulting in the lowest voter turnout in 126 years. Will we see a record low turnout in the current local government elections? It's likely that up to two million eligible voters will reject the option of participating, which will raise further questions about the decline of democracy in New Zealand, especially at the local level. This poor regard for local elections is nicely satirised today by Ben Uffindell's blogpost on The Civilian: Nation gears up for October practice elections. He mocks the low status given to these elections, suggesting they are little more than pretend candidates chasing after pretend votes and serve no other purpose than giving voters a chance to practice prior to the real (general) election next year.

This has useful graphics and statistics showing the decline in voter participation in these elections. The upshot is that turnout is generally well below 50% in most elections, although there was a minor boost at the last local body elections taking it to 49% - probably related to some close contests and the novelty of the Auckland Supercity election. This time, we might expect - especially in Auckland - the rate to plummet.

Perhaps more surprisingly, the chief executive of LGNZ is pointing the finger at the local authorities themselves. This week, TVNZ has quoted Malcolm Alexander as saying: 'My feeling generally is it's fairly low key around New Zealand this time and this is a reflection of the failure of local bodies to get out there and to engage and enthuse people' - see: Low voter turnout reflection of local body 'failures'.

Candidates can also be accused of playing a part in killing local democracy, especially due to their typically awful campaigning. This is epitomised in Kerry McBride's excellent coverage of Wellington candidates' efforts - see: When candidates say nothing at all. Victoria University media studies lecturer, Dr Peter Thompson assesses the billboards of the candidates running for the mayoralty, and says 'They all give these slogans, but none of them are saying how they would deliver their outcomes. None of them tell you what they stand for. In fact they don't say much of anything'. That probably sums up the quality of the local elections across the country.

With such bland, grey options, it's hardly surprising that few citizens participate. It also means the occasionally colourful candidate easily stands out. For example, David Farrar has pointed to an incredibly eccentric candidate who has previously received what Farrar thinks is a surprisingly large vote - see: The most unusual candidate statement. Another maverick who will likely stand out is controversial and disgraced ex-CEO of the Employers and Manufacturers Association Alasdair Thompson - see his always interesting blog. Also, note that Thompson has recently made headlines for the fact that he lobbied to have the minimum wage significantly increased, and is now a supporter of the living wage - see Simon Collins' Former CEO for bosses now backs 'living wage'.

Proponents of increasing voter turnout are usually inclined to look for technologically innovative ways to turn around the decline in participation. Postal voting was once seen as the savior of local elections but even that is now dismissed by authorities as part of the problem - see Dan Satherley's Postal voting 'trivialises' local govt. Online vorting is the next fashionable fix, and this will be trialled at the next local body elections in 2016. But don't expect this to remedy a problem that is much bigger than the question of how to go about making your tick.

Little attention is ever paid to the various District Health Board elections. It raises the question, put by blogger Ele Ludemann: Do we need DHB elections?. One expert says not. Looking at the last DHB elections, Prof Robin Gauld has argued in the past that New Zealand's health board elections are more of a fig leaf of democracy than a reality, and that many candidates are motivated by the remuneration - see Eileen Goodwin's District health board elections questioned.

Despite the downward trajectory in participation, there are a few signs that turnout could rise this year - see Glenn Conway's Christchurch Press article, Record turnout in local elections so far and Katie Chapman's Dominion Post article, Slowly, voters start to have their say in polls. However, with little in the way of substantive issues in the campaigns this seems unlikely. What's more, most of the mayoralty contests in the bigger cities appear to be relatively uncompetitive. For some details on this, look at iPredict's NZ Local Body Elections. Currently, in Auckland Len Brown is on 98%, in Christchurch Lianne Dalziel is on 94%, in Palmerston North Jono Naylor is on 98%, in Hamilton Julie Hardaker is on 92%, in Dunedin Dave Cull is on 98%, and in Invercargill Tim Shadbolt is on 99%. Only in Wellington is there a more even contest, with John Morrison on 57% and Celia Wade-Brown on 35%.

John Key has been labelled a 'galloping colonial clot' by the British Daily Mail newspaper - see its article, Queen Elizabeth in her Balmoral living room with New Zealand PM John Key, as well as its analysis of The Key photo. Of course, Key's stay at Balmoral was actually quite unique, as David Farrar points out in The PM and the Queen. He says 'The Queen has had 14 New Zealand Prime Ministers during her reign, and according to media reports Key is the first to ever be invited' to stay at Balmoral. He elaborates: 'it is a first for a NZ PM, and I think possibly for an Australian or Canadian PM also. The question is why was Key invited, when no other NZ PM has been? He is not the longest serving. I think it is purely the strength of their personal relationship'.

Of course, Cunliffe isn't the only MP with a Harvard connection. On the leftwing blogsite Ideologically Impure, some comparisons are being made between the demographics of the senior Labour and National MPs, which show that university educations are similar in both parties - see: Cabinet vs Shadow Cabinet: the identity politics. Although the post is most concerned with issues of oppression, the more interesting part is this: '17 out of 20 on Labour's list and 18 out of 20 on National's have a university education. Both parties have two members with a stint at Harvard mentioned on their Wikipedia page: David Cunliffe, Shane Jones, John Key and Hekia Parata'.

Bryce Edwards is a lecturer in Politics at the University of Otago. He teaches and researches on New Zealand politics, public policy, political parties, elections, and political communication. His PhD, completed in 2003, was on 'Political Parties in New Zealand: A Study of Ideological and Organisational Transformation'. He is currently working on a book entitled 'Who Runs New Zealand? An Anatomy of Power'. He is also on the board of directors for Transparency International New Zealand.